[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11335-S11339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
      RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on the bill (H.R. 2160) making appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate, to the bill (H.R. 
     2160) having met, after full and free conference, have agreed 
     to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this 
     report, signed by all of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 17, 1997.)
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20 
minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
member, and following the expiration or yielding back of time, the 
conference report be considered agreed to and the

[[Page S11336]]

motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to present 
for the Senate's approval today the conference report on H.R. 2160, the 
Fiscal Year 1998 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  The conference agreement provides total appropriations of $49.7 
billion. This is $4.1 billion less than the fiscal year 1997 enacted 
level and $2.6 billion less than the level requested by the President. 
It is $964 million less than the total appropriations recommended by 
the Senate-passed bill and $146 million more than the level recommended 
by the House bill.
  Including Congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-
year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total 
discretionary spending for fiscal year 1998 of $13.751 billion in 
budget authority and $13.997 billion in outlays. These amounts are 
consistent with the revised discretionary spending allocations 
established for this conference agreement.
  Both the House and the Senate passed this bill at the end of July. 
The conferees met and completed conference on September 17. I believe 
it is a credit to all members of the conference committee that we were 
able to reach a conference agreement quickly. Special recognition is 
due the ranking member of the subcommittee, my colleague from Arkansas, 
Senator Bumpers; the chairman of the House Subcommittee, Congressman 
Skeen of New Mexico; and the ranking member of the House Subcommittee, 
Congresswoman Kaptur, for their hard work and cooperation in making 
this possible.
  It was our intent that the conference report on this bill would be 
adopted by both bodies of the Congress and sent to the President prior 
to the October 1, 1997, start of the fiscal year. However, it was the 
decision of the leadership to withhold Senate approval of this 
conference agreement until further progress was made on the FDA reform 
bill, which reauthorizes fees to expedite FDA's prescription drug 
review and approval process.
  The conference agreement on this appropriations bill was adopted by 
the House of Representatives on Monday, October 6, by a vote of 399 
yeas to 18 nays. Senate adoption of this conference report today is the 
final step remaining to allow this measure to be sent to the President 
for signature into law. We have every indication that the bill will be 
signed by the President.
  Approximately $37.2 billion, close to 75 percent of the total new 
budget authority provided by this conference report, is for domestic 
food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These 
include food stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental 
food program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; and the school 
lunch and breakfast programs. This is roughly the same as the House 
bill level and $923 million less than the Senate level. The difference 
from the Senate recommended level is principally due to the fact that 
the Senate receded to the House on the transfer of funding Food and 
Consumer Service studies and evaluations to the Economic Research 
Service, and accepted the lower House bill level for the Commodity 
Assistance Program based on the Department of Agriculture's revised 
estimate of program need. In addition, the Senate receded to the House 
level of $100 million for the Food Stamp Program contingency reserve, 
$900 million less than the Senate bill level.
  For agriculture programs, the conference report recommends a total of 
$6.9 billion, $57 million more than the House bill level. This amount 
includes $1.2 billion for agricultural research and education, $423 
million for extension activities, $430 million for the Animal Plant 
Health and Inspection Service, $589 for the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, $703 million for the Farm Service Agency, and $253 million for 
the Risk Management Agency.
  For conservation programs, the conference report recommends almost 
$790 million, $30 million more than the House bill level but $36 
million less than the amount recommended by the Senate.
  For rural economic and community development programs, the bill 
recommends $2.1 billion, $47 million more than the House level and $9 
million more than the Senate bill level. Included in this amount is 
$652 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program, nearly $8 
million more than the Senate bill level, and the Senate bill level of 
$535 million for the rental assistance program. The conference report 
also provides a total rural housing loan program level of $4.2 billion.
  For foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of 
Agriculture, the bill recommends $1.7 billion, including $131 million 
in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service and a 
total program level of $1.1 billion for the Public Law 480 Food for 
Peace Program.
  The Food and Drug Administration receives one of the largest 
discretionary spending increases over the fiscal year 1997 level. 
Included in the appropriation provided by the conference agreement for 
salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration is $24 
million for food safety and $34 million for youth tobacco prevention. 
These are the full amounts requested by the Administration for these 
initiatives.
  Mr. President, there is no reason to continue temporary stop-gap 
funding for the programs and activities funded by this bill. As I 
indicated earlier, this conference report was filed on September 17 and 
was adopted by the House of Representatives on October 6. Senate 
passage of this conference report today is the final step necessary to 
send this fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill to the President for 
signature into law. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of 
this conference report.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in bringing to the Senate floor the 
conference report for the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill for the 
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and 
related agencies. We concluded a successful conference with the House 
and although our 602(b) allocation had to be adjusted downward, we were 
still able to maintain relatively high levels of funding for many 
important programs.
  As I stated during consideration of the Senate bill, I had hoped we 
could provide higher levels of funding for agricultural research. I am 
happy to report that the conference agreement provides a higher level 
of funding for the Agricultural Research Service than was contained in 
either the earlier House or Senate versions. Funding for the Food 
Safety Inspection Service is provided at a level more than $15 million 
above last year and additional funds are included for the President's 
Food Safety Initiative at USDA and FDA.
  The conference report contains funding for conservation programs well 
above last year's level and I am happy to report that the House and 
Senate conferees have agreed to changes in rural development activities 
that will protect program integrity and make them more efficient. The 
WIC Program retains the increase of more than $100 million above fiscal 
year 1997 that was included in the Senate bill and full funding for 
FDA's youth tobacco initiative is provided.
  I regret that we had to defer consideration of this conference report 
until this time. We had completed conference action and had been 
prepared to conclude action on this bill well in advance of the end of 
the previous fiscal year. However, questions raised by the 
authorization committees of the Food and Drug Administration postponed 
this final action until today. I look forward to quick passage of this 
conference report and approval by the President.
  We have already seen the President exercise his new authorities of 
line-item veto on bills presented to him. I no doubt suspect that he 
will review this legislation with a similar critical eye and, without 
doubt, he will find items that had not originated with the executive 
branch. Mr. President, I do not here intend to reopen floor debate on 
the ill-conceived line-item veto. However, I remind my colleagues, and 
my friend in the White House, that the Congress has very explicit 
responsibilities derived from the U.S. Constitution relating to the 
expenditure of funds. Simply because an item does not

[[Page S11337]]

originate with the executive does not mean it is without merit. Let me 
plainly observe that when this bill was on the Senate floor in July of 
this year, it passed by a resounding 98 to 0. Mr. President, that 
simple statistic should speak for itself and send an important message 
to those who would undue the work we have done.
  In closing, let me again say what a pleasure it has been to work with 
my friend from Mississippi, the chairman of this subcommittee. He 
understands the programs and the issues contained in this bill and his 
leadership has been beyond value. Let me also again thank the 
subcommittee's majority staff, Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, 
Rochelle Graves, and, on this side, Galen Fountain, Carole Geagley, and 
Ben Noble of my personal staff. All their work has been important to 
completing work on this bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending Agriculture and related 
agencies appropriations bill provides $49.0 billion in new budget 
authority [BA] and $41.5 billion in new outlays to fund most of the 
programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies 
for fiscal year 1998.
  When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $48.8 billion in budget 
authority and $49.2 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1998.
  Of the $49.2 billion in outlays, $35.2 billion fund entitlement 
programs like food stamps, child nutrition programs, and price support 
payments. The remaining $14.0 billion funds discretionary programs like 
rural housing and economic development, food safety inspection, 
activities of the Food and Drug Administration, agriculture research 
and the Farm Service Agency.
  The conference report falls within the current 302(b) allocation for 
the Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. I 
commend the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for bringing this 
bill to the floor within the subcommittee's allocation.
  The bill contains important increases over the 1997 level from 
programs like the WIC Program and the new food safety initiative, and I 
urge adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the conference report be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

               H.R. 2160, AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS, 1998 SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
                                   [Fiscal year 1998, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Defense  Nondefense   Crime   Mandatory   Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     13,751   .......    35,048    48,799
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     13,997   .......    35,205    49,202
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     13,791   .......    35,048    48,839
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     14,167   .......    35,205    49,372
President's request:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     14,025   .......    35,048    49,073
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     14,282   .......    35,205    49,487
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     13,650   .......    35,048    48,698
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     13,989   .......    35,205    49,194
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     13,791   .......    35,048    49,839
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     14,038   .......    35,205    49,243
 
                CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority............................................  .......        -40   .......  .........      -40
  Outlays.....................................................  .......       -170   .......  .........     -170
President's request:
  Budget authority............................................  .......       -274   .......  .........     -274
  Outlays.....................................................  .......       -285   .......  .........     -285
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority............................................  .......        101   .......  .........      101
  Outlays.....................................................  .......          8   .......  .........        8
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority............................................  .......        -40   .......  .........      -40
  Outlays.....................................................  .......        -41   .......  .........      -41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.


  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret to come to the floor once again 
to talk about wasteful and unnecessary spending in an appropriations 
conference agreement.
  During Senate consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill, I 
presented a nine-page list of add-ons, earmarks, and set-asides in the 
bill and report language.
  I had highlighted four provisions in the bill language of the Senate 
version of the Agriculture appropriations bill, and not surprisingly, 
every one of these provisions, with minor modifications, is included in 
the final conference bill.
  Interestingly, though, the conferees also made sure that most of the 
earmarks and set-asides in the report language of both Houses is 
included by reference in the final agreement. The report language of 
the conference agreement says:

       The House and Senate report language which is not changed 
     by the conference are approved by the committee of 
     conference. The statement of the managers, while repeating 
     some report language for emphasis, does not intend to negate 
     the language referred to above unless expressly provided 
     herein.

  So the list I present to the Senate today does not represent all of 
the wasteful spending in the Agriculture appropriations bill, but only 
that which the conferees made the effort to specifically mention in the 
conference statement of managers. The rest of the earmarks are simply 
carried over from the Senate and House Appropriations Committee 
reports.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 Objectionable Provisions in H.R. 2160 Conference Agreement on FY 1998 
                    Agriculture Appropriations Bill


                             bill language

       $20 million earmarked for water and waste disposal systems 
     for the Colonias along the U.S.-Mexico border
       $15 million for water systems for rural and and native 
     villages in Alaska
       Section 716 contains ``Buy America'' domestic source 
     restrictions on expenditures of appropriations in this bill
       Section 729 exempts the Martin Luther King area of Pawley's 
     Island, South Carolina, from the population eligibility 
     ceiling for housing loans and grants
       Section 730 prohibits closing or relocating the FDA 
     Division of Drug Analysis in St. Louis, Missouri


                            report language

       [Note: Statement of managers explicitly directs that report 
     language is binding, and that any language in either Senate 
     or House report that is not specifically addressed in 
     conference report should be considered direction of the 
     conference. Following list represents objectionable 
     provisions specifically stated in conference agreement.]
       Agricultural Research Service:
       Earmarks and directive language for research programs:
       $250,000 for apple-specific E. coli research at the Eastern 
     Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
       $1 million for grazing research, earmarked equally for 
     centers in Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania
       $500,000 for fusarium head blight research at the Cereal 
     Rust Laboratory in St. Paul, Minnesota
       $500,000 for research on karnal bunt at Manhattan, Kansas
       $1.25 million for Everglades Initiative, of which $500,000 
     is for research on biocontrol of melaleuca and other exotic 
     pests at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, $500,000 is for hydrology 
     studies at Canal Point, Florida, and $250,000 is for a 
     hydrologist to work on south Florida Everglades restoration
       $1 million for an Arkansas entity to perform dietary 
     research, $500,000 for similar work by a Texas entity, and 
     $250,000 for each of three other centers proposing to do 
     dietary research.
       Earmark of $250,000 for Appalachian Soil and Water 
     Conservation Laboratory
       $650,000 for ARS to assist Alaska in support of arctic 
     germplasm
       $250,000 to initiate a program for the National Center for 
     Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture at the Interior Department's 
     Leetown, West Virginia Science Center, where the national 
     aquaculture center will be collocated
       $250,000 for high-yield cotton germplasm research at 
     Stoneville, Mississippi
       $250,000 to support research on infectious diseases in 
     warmwater fish at the Fish Disease and Parasite Research 
     Laboratory at Auburn, Alabama
       $500,000 increase for the National Aquaculture Research 
     Center in Arkansas
       $250,000 for grain legume genetics research at Washington 
     State University
       $500,000 earmark for additional scientists to do research 
     on parasitic mites and Africanized honeybees at the ARS Bee 
     Laboratory in Weslaco, Texas
       $100,000 to continue hops research in the Pacific Northwest
       $500,000 increase for the National Warmwater Aquaculture 
     Research Center in Mississippi, and direction in the House 
     report that the center be renamed the Thad Cochran National 
     Warmwater Aquaculture Center
       $500,000 for Northwest Nursery Crops Research Center in 
     Oregon

[[Page S11338]]

       $250,000 increase for Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory 
     in Georgia
       $250,000 increase for an animal physiologist position at 
     the Fort Keough Laboratory in Montana
       $250,000 increase for additional scientific staffing at 
     Small Fruits Research Laboratory in Mississippi
       $5 million for Formosan subterranean termite research
       $200,000 for sugarcane biotechnology research at Southern 
     Regional Research Center in Louisiana
       Earmark of $500,000 for ginning research at laboratory in 
     Texas
       $100,000 for funding of research at Poisonous Plant 
     Laboratory at Logan, Utah
       $1 million for coastal wetlands and erosion research at the 
     Rice Research Station in Louisiana
       $250,000 for research at the Food Fermentation Center in 
     Raleigh, North Carolina
       $450,000 to hire two small grain pathologists, one at the 
     ARS laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina, and the other at 
     the laboratory at Aberdeen, Iowa
       $950,000 for rice research in Beaumont, Texas, and 
     Stuttgart, Arkansas
       $200,000 for plant genetics equipment for the ARS 
     laboratory at Greenhouse, Missouri
       $700,000 for natural products in Mississippi
       Earmarks for unrequested building projects:
       $5.2 million for the Western Human Nutrition Research 
     Center in Davis, California
       $1.8 million for the Avian Disease Labs in East Lansing, 
     Michigan
       $7.9 million for two projects in Mississippi (planning and 
     design for a Biocontrol and Insect Rearing Laboratory in 
     Stoneville, and National Center for Natural Products in 
     Oxford)
       $606,000 for a pest quarantine and integrated pest 
     management facility in Montana
       $4.4 million for Human Nutrition Research Center in North 
     Dakota
       $4.824 million for the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in South 
     Carolina
       $600,000 for a Poisonous Plant Laboratory in Utah
       $6 million for a National Center for Cool and Cold Water 
     Aquaculture in Leetown, West Virginia
       Supportive language:
       Notes importance of barley stripe rust research at Pullman, 
     Washington laboratory and expects work on controlling root 
     disease of wheat and barley in cereal-based production 
     systems to continue at FY 1997 levels
       Support the addition of a new lettuce geneticist/plant 
     breeder position at the ARS in Salinas, California
       Expects ARS to expand research for meadowfoam at Oregon 
     State University and the ARS facility at Peoria, Illinois
       Directs National Sedimentation Laboratory to initiate 
     integrated watershed research program for Yalobusha River 
     Basin and Grenada Lake
       Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
     Service:
       Earmarks:
       $51.5 million for 110 special research grants:
       Less than $7 million of this amount was requested, and the 
     conferees reduced funding for 3 requested projects
       All but $7 million of the $51.5 million is earmarked for 
     particular states.
       Almost $9 million for unrequested administrative costs in 
     connection with 14 research programs in specific states, 
     including:
       $150,000 for the Center for Human Nutrition in Baltimore, 
     Maryland
       $844,000 for the Geographic Information System program in 
     Georgia, Chesapeake Bay, Arkansas, North Dakota, Washington, 
     and Wisconsin, and new entities in New Mexico, and Colorado
       $100,000 for the mariculture program at University of North 
     Carolina at Wilmington
       $150,000 for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness
       $3.354 million for shrimp aquaculture in Arizona, Hawaii, 
     Mississippi, Massachusetts, and South Carolina
       Directs consideration of Pennsylvania State University E. 
     coli Reference Center as candidate for $2 million food safety 
     initiative
       $6.1 million for 14 unrequested special grants for 
     extension activities and personnel in specific states
       Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
       Earmarks and directive language:
       $1.225 million for rabies control programs in Ohio, Texas, 
     New York, and other states
       $400,000 for a geographic information system project to 
     prepare to expand boll weevil eradication program into 
     remaining cotton production areas
       Supportive language: Urges APHIS to continue cooperative 
     efforts to eradicate boll weevil in New Mexico
       Agricultural Marketing Service:
       Earmarks: $1 million for marketing assistance to Alaska
       National Resources Conservation Service:
       Earmarks:
       $350,000 for Great Lakes Basin Program for soil and erosion 
     sediment control
       $3 million for technical assistance in Franklin County, 
     Mississippi
       $750,000 for Deer Creek watershed in Oklahoma
       $300,000 to assist farmers around Lake Otisco in New York
       $100,000 for Trees Forever program in Iowa
       Supportive language: Supports continuation of Potomac 
     Headwaters project, which was proposed by Senate at $1.8 
     million, and encourage continued work with West Virginia 
     Department of Agriculture for further development of poultry 
     waste energy recovery project at Moorefield and project 
     implementation at Franklin
       Rural Community Advancement Program:
       Supportive language: Urges consideration of grant proposals 
     from 5 entities (in Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, and the 
     Midwest) which were not mentioned in either report [page 52 
     of conference report]
       Rural Utilities Service:
       Supportive language: Encourages Agriculture Department to 
     give consideration to an application from State University of 
     New York Telecommunications Center for Education for a 
     distance learning project, which was not mentioned in either 
     report.
       Total objectionable provisions: $152.4 million.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me take a moment to highlight some of 
the items that are specifically earmarked in the conference agreement.
  The conferees earmark $3.354 million of the research funds provided 
to the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
[CSREES] for shrimp aquaculture studies in Hawaii, Mississippi, 
Massachusetts, California, and my home State, Arizona. Funding for 
shrimp aquaculture is a perennial congressional add-on that has not, to 
my knowledge, ever been included in an administration budget request. 
And I have yet to fathom the logic of conducting shrimp research in the 
desert.
  The conferees earned another $150,000 from the same CSREES account 
for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness. Again, this item 
was not included in the budget request but was added by the House with 
the expectation that the Department of Agriculture would ``exploit 
every opportunity to collaborate with the Center''--according to the 
House report language.
  Two earmarks are included in the conference managers' statement for 
the National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture in Leetown, WV. 
The conferees earned another $6 million to complete construction of a 
building at this site, which was funded at the same level in the fiscal 
year 1997 bill. And the conferees also provided $250,000 to initiate a 
program to be conducted at this new facility which, according to the 
Senate report language, will ``ensure that risks associated with the 
long-term stability of the [cool and cold water aquaculture] industry 
are reduced.''
  Finally, the conferees earmarked $1.7 million for new personnel at 
various centers. The specific earmarks in the statement of managers 
language include: $500,000 for additional scientists to do research on 
parasitic mites and Africanized honeybees at the Agriculture Research 
Service Bee Laboratory in Weslaco, TX; $250,000 for an animal 
physiologist position at the Fort Keough Laboratory in Montana; 
$250,000 for additional scientific staffing at the Small Fruits 
Research Laboratory in Mississippi; $450,000 to hire two small grain 
pathologists, one at the Agriculture Research Laboratory in Raleigh, 
NC, and the other at the laboratory at Aberdeen, IA; and $250,000 for a 
hydrologist to work on south Florida Everglades restoration. The report 
language of both Houses and the conferees also includes numerous 
instances of language supporting or urging or encouraging various 
agencies to hire additional staff personnel, including a particular 
reference in the managers' statement, that was not included in either 
report, to express the conferees' ``support [for] the addition of a new 
lettuce geneticist/plant breeder position at the U.S. Agricultural 
Research Station in Salinas, CA.''
  Mr. President, these are just a few examples of the egregiously 
wasteful spending practices of the Congress. I cannot condone wasting 
millions of taxpayer dollars at a time when we are finally making 
progress toward a balanced budget. Even when we have eliminated annual 
deficits, hopefully within just a few years, our Nation will still face 
a debt of over $5.4 trillion. Why not stop wasting money on unnecessary 
projects, and start repaying this huge debt?
  I plan to recommend that the President exercise his line item veto 
authority to eliminate these earmarks and set-asides. I hope he does 
so, because eliminating unnecessary spending is in the best interest of 
all Americans.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my colleagues', 
Mr. Feingold and Mr. Grams, efforts to clarify study language included 
in the

[[Page S11339]]

Agriculture appropriations bill being discussed today.
  My friends from the Northeast have worked hard to boost prices above 
market clearing levels by creating a regional compact for their 
farmers. Now that the compact is implemented and operating, we need a 
timely, comprehensive economic analysis by the Office of Management and 
Budget of the marketing and pricing of milk within the six State 
compact and surrounding areas. The pricing of milk is an extremely 
complex issue. Artificially manipulating the marketing and pricing of 
milk will have major impacts on other regions of the United States, 
like Wisconsin.
  Their proposal to raise prices for farmers has worked well and that 
cost is being passed on to consumers. A recently released study 
announced that Massachusetts consumers will pay an additional $25 
million for their milk over the next 12 months. The print media has 
reported that consumers are paying $.27 a gallon more per gallon of 
milk in the compact area. We need to analyze the impact this price 
increase has not only on government purchases of dairy products for 
lunch programs, but also the impact on low-income families that spend 
more of their income on food and dairy products.
  Although the program only regulates class I milk, other classes will 
be impacted by the economic signals encouraging Northeast dairy farmers 
to overproduce. What happens to that excess fluid or manufacturing milk 
that will be produced in the Northeast and forced to find a new 
processing plant outside the compact area? Again, the print media has 
reported that distressed raw milk has moved out of the Northeast to 
plants in Ohio and as far away as Wisconsin and Minnesota. Ohio plants 
reportedly were paying $8.00 per cwt. delivered milk filling all 
manufacturing plants to capacity in that State. That excess supply of 
milk added to the overproduction that occurred in the United States 
further exasperating record low price paid to farms this summer.
  Finally, the study should consider a cost/benefit analysis for each 
State participating in the compact. For example, Massachusetts has only 
about 300 dairy farms, roughly 10 percent of New England total, while 
its consumers pay half of the aggregate total consumer costs.
  I encourage the Office of Management and Budget to take a serious 
look at the issue.


                 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the conference report (105-252) on 
Department of Agriculture appropriations includes $34.4 million for 
resource conservation and development [RC&D]. The conferees note that 
this increase in funding is not specifically earmarked for any 
initiative but should be used for approved RC&D Councils waiting for 
funding. I agree that the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] 
should prioritize funding for newly approved RC&D Councils. These 
councils provide much needed assistance to watersheds and conservation 
districts seeking to maximize the environmental benefits of their 
conservation programs. RC&D Councils should be funded. RC&D is a very 
important program for protection and prudent development of our 
Nation's natural resource base. Working through local RC&D Councils, 
this program helps enhance our ability to meet economic objectives 
within the context of a wise and sustainable use of our natural 
resources. In Washington State, a State rich in natural resources, RC&D 
offers the chance to meet the challenges of threatened resources in the 
face of demands for continued economic development.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Washington. 
The purpose of the RC&D program is to encourage and improve the 
capability of State and local units of government and local nonprofit 
organizations in rural areas to plan, develop, and carry out programs 
for resource conservation and development. The NRCS also helps 
coordinate available Federal, State, and local programs to ensure 
adequate protection of natural resources while promoting sound 
development practices. Funding of the RC&D Councils is an important 
priority for the NRCS, as correctly emphasized by the conferees, and I 
urge the NRCS to not overlook opportunities to enhance the efforts of 
the RC&D Councils in a manner complimentary and consistent with these 
stated objectives.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues in 
expressing support for the important work of RC&D Councils as well as 
opportunities to enhance these efforts. I urge the NRCS to seek avenues 
that maximize the beneficial conservation and environmental purposes of 
RC&D activities.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as provided by the unanimous-consent 
agreement taking up this appropriations conference report, there are 20 
minutes equally divided available for further discussion of the 
conference report. I have had some indication that there may be one or 
two Senators who may wish to comment. Pending their arrival on the 
floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have been advised by the staff that 
hotlines have been sent out to Members on both sides, and we have no 
indication that any other Senator wants to come and speak on the 
subject of the conference report.
  Therefore, I am authorized by the distinguished ranking member to 
yield back all time remaining on the conference report on both sides of 
the aisle, and I now so do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the conference report is 
agreed to.
  The conference report was agreed to.

                          ____________________